[ANSI-Smalltalk] Welcome

[Steve Wart]

The IETF slides are interesting. This approach feels more "agile" than ANSI,
but Paolo's point about re-writing the entire spec if we were to move away
from ANSI needs to be addressed.

Having two standards is a bit like having two watches...

Steve

On Nov 14, 2007 8:08 PM, John Dougan <jdougan at acm.org> wrote:

> I've found that the history of ANSI standard language efforts is a
> checkered one.   Myself, I'd rather be using something like the IETF
> process:
>
> http://edward.oconnor.cx/2006/11/DIY-standards-body
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
>
> The IETF process appears to be more inclusive and much more resistant to
> vendor lock.  I don't think a $1200 fee is much of a guarantee of
> seriousness....it hasn't worked before and is enough to eliminate much
> of the open source community.
>
> Cheers,
>
>  -- John Dougan
>
> Janko Mivšek wrote:
> > Bruce Badger wrote:
> >> On 14/11/2007, Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think Peter's question was targeted more to the accessibility of
> >>> final
> >>> standard. And here another question opens: why won't we choose some
> >>> other standards body, which has more open politics to final documents?
> >>> OMG is coming to my head ...
> >>
> >> We have the ANSI process rolling now, Janko.  If you are seriously
> >> suggesting that we change horses then I think you would need to put up
> >> a more detailed proposal so we can compare the alternatives.
> >>
> >> In the meantime I suggest that we keep working on the bird we have in
> >> our hand, viz ANSI.
> >
> > Well, we are rolling first and foremost a Smalltalk standardization
> > process and  ANSI as a standardization body was IMHO chosen more by
> > inertia, because existing standard is ANSI. So, the race started for
> > Smalltalk standard and yes, you started ANSI path, but that doesn't
> > mean we need to continue that path, we are not too deep yet anyway.
> >
> > If there is some better standardization body, we should at least
> > consider it. Better for me is more open on final documents, not
> > necessary less costly. That yearly fee is kind of a guaranty for
> > seriousness.
> >
> > What others think about that?
> >
> > JAnko
> >
>
> --
> John Dougan
> jdougan at acm.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ANSI-Smalltalk mailing list
> ANSI-Smalltalk at lists.openskills.org
> http://lists.openskills.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ansi-smalltalk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.openskills.org/pipermail/ansi-smalltalk/attachments/20071114/5f709e94/attachment.htm